9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 806X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same SCN. Vide the Order-in-Original dt. 28/07/2010, the above SCN was adjudicated and concluded, with no demands since payments were already made. 1.2. A second SCN was issued on 28/09/2010 for the period 01/04/2005 to 31/03/2009 proposing to demand differential service tax; also proposing to levy penalty and interest on the appellant and the same was adjudicated upon vide the Order-in-Original dt. 23/06/2014 wherein, the adjudicating authority without even bothering about the overlapping period, confirmed the proposals made in the show-cause notice. Seriously aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority, who, vide the Order-in-Appeal dt. 27/02/2017 took note of the overlapping period in the show-cause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the above order, appellant preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority who vide impugned Order-in-Appeal No.BEL-EXCUS-000-APP-MSC-001-2020-21 dt. 29/05/2020 has rejected the appeal, against which, the present appeal has been filed before this forum. 2. Heard Shri R. Dakshina Murthy, learned advocate for the appellant and Shri Rama Holla, learned Superintendent(AR) for the Revenue. 3. Facts are not in dispute. The Order-in-Appeal dt. 27/02/2017 wherein the demand was directed to be restricted to 2008-09 alone has become final with both the Revenue as well as the appellant accepting the same and hence, the same would be binding on both. When the demand is restricted to 2008-09, the predeposit, if any, cannot be calculated a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , it does not refer to any other amounts collected without authority of law. In the case on hand, admittedly, the amount sought for as refund was the amount paid under mistaken notion which even according to the department was not liable to be paid. 4.2. Taking note of the above, the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in a later decision in the case of Way2Wealth Brokers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCT, Bengaluru [2021-TIOL-1969-KAR-ST] has observed as under:- 14. .... ... .. .... When there is a lack of authority to collect such service tax not liable to be paid by the assessee, it would not give the Department the authority to retain the amount paid by the assessee. Therefore, mere nomenclature would not be an embargo on the right of the petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
